NTNU Faculty of Engineering, Science and Technology

Norwegian University of DEPARTMENT OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERING

Science and Technology AND APPLIED GEOPHYSICS

DROPLETS IN PRODUCTION TUBING AND SEPARATORS

Akpan, Dominic George

Trondheim

July 2012
 Preface

This project work is a course carried out in TPG 4510; Petroleum Production
Specialization. It is a compulsory course for Petroleum Production candidates in their 9th
semester at Norwegian University of Science & Technology, NTNU. The course weighs
15 points which amounts to 50% of a semester work.

My warm appreciation and thank go to my supervisor, Professor Jon Steinar

Gudmundsson for the interesting topic he gave me and his availability despite his time
constraint to guide me and the useful advice he offered.

ii
 Abstract

This project work focused on droplets in production tubing and separators during gas
production. Droplets are quantities of small drops of liquid produced along with the gas
as liquids in form of free water, water condensate or hydrocarbon condensate through
different sources. This report uses different models as proposed by Turner et al, and
Gudmundsson to find the kind of droplet sizes found at the bottom of a gas well to the
separation in horizontal separators and scrubbers based on the composition of a given
gas well. The sizes were found to be of the range 480 m to 790 m. The properties of
the gas were determined using an engineering simulation software-HYSYS. The
minimum velocity otherwise known as critical velocity was obtained as 1.8 m/s, and
rate to lift the droplets to the surface was 2.2 Sm3/s. The calculated values were
compared using different correlations of Turner et al, Coleman, Nosseir and Li. Droplet
sizes ranges from 400 m to 500 m were found to have a terminal settling velocity of
0.01 m/s. Gas density, temperature, interface tension, pressure and conduit diameter
were found as factors affecting the size and distribution of droplets in wells in oil and
gas operations.

iii
 Table of contents

Pages

Title page

Preface ...... ii

Abstract . iii

Table of contents .... iv

List of tables ..... vi

List of figures .. vii

1. Introduction . .. 1

2. Theory and literature review ..3

2.1 Gas well liquid loading ..3

2.2 Predicting liquid loading in gas well ..7

2.3 Multiphase flow ..8

2.4 Transition in flow regimes of a liquid loaded well ..9

2.5 Droplet sizes ..11

2.6 Critical velocity and rate..12

2.7 Energy to lift droplets...14

2.8 Droplets in separators.16

3. Determination of fluid properties using HYSYS.19

4. Estimation of gas velocity and flow.21

5. Estimation of droplet diameter 23

6. Determination of critical velocity and rate for gas 24

7. Droplets in separator 25

iv
8. Discussion26

9. Conclusion ..28

Nomenclature .. 29

Reference ..31

Appendix ...33

v
 List of tables

Table A1: Composition of gas

Table A2: Retention time for a two-phase separator

Table A3: Fluid properties at bottom hole conditions using HYSYS

Table A4: Fluid properties at Wellhead (surface) conditions using HYSYS

Table A5: Fluid properties after choke at the Separator for separation

Table A6 Summary of some fluid properties at bottom, surface and separator

Table A7 Pipe roughness ( ) values

Table A8: Maximum droplet sizes as proposed by Turner et al and Gudmundsson

Table A9: Different correlations for critical velocity and gas rate calculations at Well
Head Conditions (WHC)

vi
 List of figures

Figure B1: Typical production response in liquid loading gas well

Figure B2: Showing the illustration of Critical Concept

Figure B3 : Shape of entrained drop movement in high-velocity gas

Figure B4: Typical Gas Well Decline Curve along with Indication of Loading
Figure B5: Typical Pressure Survey Graph
Figure B6: Basic Profile of Multiphase Flow in Well
Figure B7: Changing behaviour of a liquid loaded well

Figure B8. Different types of droplet deformation and breakup

Figure B9: Horizontal Separator

Figure B10: HYSYS Simulation panel

Figure B11 Moody Diagram

Figure B12: Phase diagram

Figure B13: Plot of gas velocity with depth

Figure B14: Plot of pressure gradient and depth

Figure B15: Plot of depth, m vs pressure mPa and velocity, m/s

Figure B16: Plot of terminal settling velocity (TSV), m/s vs droplet diameter, microns.

vii
1. Introduction

Droplets are quantities of small drops of liquids falling or settling as free water; water
condensate or hydrocarbon condensate in production tubing and separators. Their
removal from high pressure gas is one of the operations in gas production and
processing as they may produce erosion, degradation of equipment and contamination
of the produced gas. When these drops are not carried to the surface of the well, they
will form films on the tubing and accumulate at the bottom of the well thereby causing
liquid loading. This occurs when the gas velocity within the well drops below a certain
critical gas velocity. The gas is then unable to lift the droplets co-produced as formation
water or condensates to the surface. The water will fall back and accumulate the down
hole thereby forming a column which imposes a backpressure on the reservoir. This
leads to intermittent gas production and then the well will cease production and dies.

Droplets are further transported along pipelines and separated in horizontal or vertical
separator vessels called scrubbers which operate in a wide range of temperatures and
pressures. A typical scrubber comprised three main parts; an inlet vane, a mesh part and
a cyclone section in order to obtain separation efficiency according to specification. The
inlet vane is to reduce the momentum of the inlet two-phase flow and to separate the
free liquid and large sized droplets from the gas. The mesh consists of layers of knitted
wire used to separate small droplets from the gas flow and may be used in flooding
mode to increases the average droplet size. The cyclone section contains banks of
cyclones which removes the remaining droplets and lead the liquid back to the bottom
of the scrubber.

In this report, the composition of a typical gas well (Table 1) in the appendix was used,
HYSYS was used to determine its properties and for flow calculations. I calculated the
gas velocity as the ratio of the actual volumetric flow rate obtained from HYSYS to the
cross sectional area of the conduit and used Turner et als (1969) equations to find the
minimum gas velocity and rate to remove the liquid droplets. For liquid droplets
entrained in a gas stream, its diameter is dependent upon the gas velocity, it was
determined using a dimensionless Weber number of 30. The Weber number in this case
is the ratio of the momentum in the vapour layer to the surface tension force restraining

1
the liquid where the droplet diameter is the surface pore size. A two-phase horizontal
separator (gas scrubber) was used to recover the liquids carried over from the gas
outlets of the production separator. Calculations and plots were made using the values
obtained from HYSYS, to predict loading and the factors affecting a gas well to hold up
liquid droplets and/or size distribution of drops in oil and gas operations were also
determined.

The purpose of this project work was to find out what kind of droplet sizes are found
from the bottom of gas wells to the separation in horizontal separators and scrubbers;
also the factors and physical effects that control the size and size distribution of drops in
oil and gas production.

2
2. Theory and literature review

2.1 Gas well liquid loading

Gas well loading is one of the serious problems encountered by the production
engineers in gas production as it reduces and eventually cuts production. It is the
inability of a gas well to remove liquids that are produced with the gas from the
wellbore. It occurs as a result of liquid accumulation as stated above. Turner et al.,
(1969), Coleman et al., (1991), Nosseir et al., (2000), and Li et al., (2001) have developed
various entrained droplet models to calculate the minimum gas velocity and flow rate
needed to keep the gas well unloaded. The first breakthrough in understanding the
process of gas well loading was made by Turner et al., (1969) when they created two
models for the transportation of liquids. One for transport by way a liquid film on the
wall of a tubing where the upward movement is created by interfacial shear, the other
by a way of the entrained droplets in a vertically moving gas stream. The minimum gas
velocity to remove all the liquids from the well was lowest in the entrained droplet
model. The droplet model predicts the free falling velocity of the biggest droplet in the
flow and the minimum gas velocity to remove all the liquids is assumed to be above the
free falling velocity of that droplet referred to as Turners rate.

Rarely gas wells produced completely dry gas; this means almost every gas well
produces liquids along the gas even if the produced amount is small. These liquids may
be free water, water condensate or hydrocarbon condensate. Condensate may be
produced as liquid or vapour depending on the reservoir and wellbore pressure.
Produced liquids have several sources depending on the conditions and type of the
reservoir from which the gas is produced as follows;

1. An aquifer below the gas zone which may either lead to water coning or water
encroachment.
2. Another zone or zones especially if the completion type of the well is open hole.
3. As free water present in the formation.
4. As hydrocarbon vapour condensed due to bottom hole and tubing head
temperature and pressure.
5. Water vapour in gas that condensates near the top of the well; due to cooling,
the vapour condenses out to liquid water.

3
The symptoms of liquid loading were discussed by Lea and Nicken (2004). They
proposed that liquid loading is recognised by sharp drop in the decline curve; onset of
liquid slugs at the surface, an increasing difference between the tubing and the casing
pressure with time, and sharp changes in gradient on a flowing pressure survey. They
also discussed the possible ways to reduce liquid loading which include; production
string sizing in a smaller tubing size is chosen to increase the gas velocity above the
critical Turners rate, compressor installation that lowers the tubing head pressure to
increase the gas velocity above the critical Turner rate, a plunger lift to lift all the liquid
by use of the gas pressure during shutdown of the well, pump installation to pump up
the liquids during production, foaming the liquid so that it is easier for the gas to lift all
the fluids, thus reducing critical Turner rate and gas lifting from other wells that have no
liquid loading to decrease the pressure loss in the tubing and increase the velocity. Thus
the best solution for a given well to reduce loading depends on the properties of that
particular well.

In addition, this phenomenon occurs when liquids (interstitial water and hydrocarbon
condensates) entrained in the produced gas; accumulate in the wellbore to the extent
that they can severely reduced production by backpressure and by reduced gas relative
permeability in the surrounding formation. The accumulating fluid may eventually
balance out the available gas reservoir energy and cause the well to die. This became
apparent in the 1940s in USA when the gas well operators were required to report to
the regulating authorities on the production potential of their gas wells. In wet wells, it
was however observed that often time the calculated bottom hole flowing pressure for
the lowest rate did not fit the inflow performance curve as derived from high rate test
points. Other problems realised were instability of flowing head pressure and difficulties
in obtaining representative liquid sample. This problem was seen to be caused by the
presence of liquids in the well, which were not able to be transported to the surface in a
steady continuous mode. At the lowest test rates, the gas velocity was insufficient to
carry liquids to the surface either in form of droplets or as a liquid film on the tubing
wall. The concept of critical velocity was introduced to predict onset of liquid loading. It
was believed that when the gas velocity is below the critical velocity, liquid loading is
imminent. Figure B1 (Royal Dutch Shell Report EP 2003, p3) shows an example of a gas
well that initially producing steadily when it was not loaded. After some years the gas

4
production starts declining; as the gas volumetric flow rate decline, the liquid
production rate starts increasing.

Liquid removal from gas well caused resurgence of gas production. Thus the ability to
determine when the gas rate is below critical velocity was considered instrumental for
combating the problem of liquid accumulation down hole. The first approach to solve
this problem was developed by Duggan (1961) who postulated that the gas velocity at
well head should not be less than 15 ft/s (4.6 m/s) at the lowest test rate. Although the
approach worked in a number of cases, it was often felt to be conservative and the
criterion could not be adhered to; for example, low rate producers of which the well
head velocity was already close to 15 ft/s at full flow. A more refined method and
approach was presented by Turner et al (1969), they were the first investigators to
develop mathematical model for analysing and predicting the minimum gas flow rate to
prevent liquid loading. The two models they postulated were; the film movement model
and the entrained drop movement model.

On the basis of analysis of field data, they conclude that the film movement model does
not represent the controlling liquid transport mechanism. This was because the velocity
predicted to sustain liquid transported as a film coating the tubing wall to the surface is
high which can only be applicable to high rate producers. Since at low gas rate liquid are
still transported to the surface, the conclusion to this realisation was that liquid film
transport mechanism cannot be valid approach to predict minimum gas velocity
required to continuously transport liquid droplets to the surface.

The entrained liquid drop movement approach was developed on the basis of the critical
velocity of liquid drops and the maximum diameter corresponding to the critical Weber
number of 30. In this model, the droplet weights acts downward, and the drag force
from the gas acts upwards as in the figure B2 (Lea J. et al., 2008), showing the
illustration of critical concept. When the drag is equal to the weight, the gas velocity is at
critical. Theoretically, at the critical velocity or terminal velocity, the droplet will be
suspended in the gas stream moving neither upward nor downward. Below the critical
velocity; the droplet falls, and the liquid accumulate the wellbore. A comparison of these
two models with the field test data concluded that liquid droplet theory yielded a better
model for predicting the onset of liquid loading. It is also concluded that there exist a gas

5
velocity sufficient to remove the droplet continuously to avoid load up, but a 20%
increase should be added to ensure removal of all drops.

Coleman et al., (1991) proposed a new look at predicting load up without the 20%
increase as proposed by Turner et al in the minimum gas flow rate, known as critical
rate. They also stated that liquid-gas ratio below 3.6 m3 of liquid per twenty eight
thousand cubic meter of gas have no influence in determining the onset of load-up,
meaning the gas flow rate is the dominant factor. Nosseir et al., (2000) suggested a new
approach for accurate prediction of loading in gas wells under different flowing
conditions. Turner et als., (1969) concepts are adopted but different flow conditions are
considered resulting in different flow regimes. Wide variation of flow conditions in gas
wells would make it difficult to assume a constant flow regime for all wells and
conditions, therefore their new approach mostly consisted of a case by case basis. Upon
calculating the critical rate flow, it is stated the appropriate equation should be applied
for each case. In wells with the possibility of having more than one flow regime, it is
recommended that the calculations are carried out at the well head pressure since gas
slippage will be at the maximum near the surface, and also water should be considered
as the loading phase to guarantee removing all the droplets of lighter phases.

Li et al., (2002) had a new view on continuous removal of liquids and adopted the liquid
droplets entrained in gas core theory but predicted that the liquid droplets tend to be
flat instead of spherical as shown in figure B3 and deduced new simple formulas for the
continuous removal of these droplets accordingly for field application. Models and
approaches by Turner et al., (1969) and Coleman et al., (1991) did not take the
deformation of a free falling droplet into consideration. The results calculated from
these formulae were smaller than findings of Turner et al. However, they stated that
predicted results were in accord with the practical production performance of Chinas
gas wells dealing with liquid loading problems.

Veeken et al., (2003) accepted Turners method, but devised a ratio term called Turner
Ratio (TR) which is the ratio of actual flow rate and minimum flow rate predicted by
Turner et al for continuous removal of liquids. Their correlation data include deviated
wells; also they predicted the critical rate for deviated wells is about the same for
vertical wells. An inflow performance parameter was added to their Turner Ratio
equation which allows evaluating critical flow rate at bottom-hole conditions. Their
6
model showed that a much higher flow rate is needed to remove liquids properly and
continuously at low pressures.

Belfroid et al., (2008) stated that when making predictions on critical flow rates;
inclination angle, flow regime transitions, tubing outflow and reservoir inflow relations
should be taken to account. They also argued that the influence of dynamic disturbances
on the stability is not taken into account by the classical prediction models. They
concluded that the onset of liquid loading is determined by the transport of the liquid
film. They stated that for larger inclinations the effects of gravity is reduced and
therefore critical gas rate will be lower. However at large inclinations, the liquid film
starts to thicken at the bottom compare to top, which increases the critical gas flow rate.
This results in erroneous flow rate calculations in classical models. It is concluded that
high permeability reservoirs will show liquid loading behaviour much faster than low
permeability reservoirs. Their results regarding critical flow rate were much higher than
classical models especially in high permeability low pressure reservoirs.

2.2 Predicting liquid loading in gas wells

Several methods have been developed to predict the onset of liquid loading in gas well.
One of the earlier approaches was done by Dungan (1961), who define a minimum gas
velocity at well head conditions of 5 ft/s to avoid loading. This conclusion was based
purely on empirical data, in an attempt to make an easy guideline to operators testing
the well with routine well tests. This was later found not be generally applicable by
Libson et al., (1980) who found that well with as high as wellhead velocities as 16 ft/s
could cease from flowing. If the symptoms of liquid are recognised at early stages, loses
in gas production that may eventually cost the life of the well may be avoided. A proper
analysis of the decline curve of a gas well can be informative about down-hole flow
problems of the well. The changes in the general shape of the decline curve can be an
important indication of loading if properly analysed. Characteristically, a typical decline
curve of a dry gas production well should be a smooth exponential curve as reservoir
depletes over time. During decline of the curve sharp changes and fluctuation indicate
possible liquid loading down-hole due to erratic flow behaviour caused by liquid slugs.
Figure B4 shows the expected decline curve and possible fluctuations due to liquid
loading. Eventually, these sharp declines will cause the well to deplete earlier than

7
reservoir estimation and possibly die prematurely. Installing methods remedial for
liquid loading can restore the decline curve of the well to its original shape.

If liquids begin accumulating in the bottom-hole, the increase pressure caused by

hydrostatic head pressure of the liquid on the formation will cause a drop in surface
tubing pressure. In wells with conventional packer-less completion; that is wells
completed with no packers due to low pressure or for the purpose of testing for
pressure, the increased pressure in the tubing would cause gas bubbles to start
accumulating in the tubing casing annulus, causing an increase in the casing surface
pressure contrary to tubing pressure. Therefore in packer-less completion, an increase
in casing surface pressure and a corresponding decrease in tubing surface pressure
could indicate possible liquid loading. Although this method is a good indicator when the
pressure are observed closely, a pressure survey should give definitive data on the
matter to see if the well is really began loading.

A flowing or static well pressure survey done with electronic down-hole gauges is
possibly the most accurate method to determine whether is loading with liquids. This
measures the pressure with the corresponding depth of the well while the well is
flowing or shut in. the data can be used to construct a pressure gradient graph which is
the function of the density of the fluid in the well at that particular depth. The
constructed pressure gradient curve will exhibit a sharp change when the fluid in the
well turns to liquid from gas since the density of liquid are much higher than the density
of gases occupying the well. The pressure graph as shown in figure B5 gives the liquid
level, since the point where the sharp change occurs is basically the point where the the
liquid is loaded in the well.

2.3 Multiphase flow

In order to understand the liquid loading phenomena properly and dealing with it
effectively, it must be understood how liquid and gas behave when flowing together
upwards in the production string of the well. This concept is called multiphase flow.
Multiphase flow is, basically, a flow phenomenon that denotes there is more than one
fluid phase flowing through a media; in this case the media being the production string
of the gas well. Multiphase flow is usually represented by four main flow regimes which

8
are; bubble flow, slug flow, transition flow, and annular/mist flow as shown in the figure
B6 (Lea, J. F. etal 2004). These flow regimes occur when certain flow velocity of liquid
and gas phases and the amount of these phases relative to each other in the media, again
in this case the gas well producing. The above flow regimes are defined as follows;
Annular/mist flow: The gas phase is the dominant phase in the well and the continuous
one. Liquid is present among the gas as a mist. Inside of the tubular is covered with a
thin layer of liquid travelling up the pipe. In this flow, the pressure gradient is
determined from gas.
Transition flow: The flow starts to change from mist to slug therefore the continuous
phase changes from gas to liquid or vice versa. Liquid particles may still be in gas as mist
form but the presence of liquid determines pressure gradient.
Slug flow: The gas is found as large slugs in liquid but the dominant and continuous
phase is liquid. Gas slugs may cause drops in pressure gradient therefore liquid and gas
both determine pressure gradient.
Bubble flow: The tubular in the well is almost completely filled with liquid. Gas is
present as small bubbles in the liquid therefore it can cause pressure drops in the liquid,
decreasing pressure gradient along the well. However, the liquid is the continuous phase
along the tubular and completely determines pressure gradient, although presence of
gas bubbles may cause drops in pressure.

2.4 Transition in flow regimes of a liquid loaded well

During a lifetime of a gas well, it may go through all flow regimes described in above. What
determines type of flow regime is the velocity or flow rate. Figure B7 shows an illustration
of a typical gas well how it progresses from an initial production to end of life. In the
illustration in the figure, it is assumed that the tubing end does not extend to the mid-
perforations so that there is a section of casing from the tubing end to mid-perforations.

The well underwent eight stages before it finally dead as follows;

(1) The well has a high rate so that the flow regime is in mist flow in the tubing; however,
it may be in bubble, transition, or slug flow below the tubing end to the mid-perforations.

(2) At this stage the production declines in time.

9
(3) The liquid production has started increasing, the flow regimes from the mid of
perforation to the halfway of the conduit may be in slug or bubble flow regime. But the flow
condition at the surface still exhibits mist flow.

(4) Liquid is taking more prominent space in the flow regime and flow rate declines further.

(5) Down hole the flow regime has completely turned to bubble flow.

(6) This transition is further accompanied by a marked increase in the decline rate.

(7) The flow regime further down hole may be in bubble or slug flow, even though the surface
production is in stable mist flow.

(8) Eventually, the unstable slug flow at surface will transit to a stable, fairly steady
production rate again as the gas rate declines further. This event occurs when the gas rate is
too low to carry liquids to surface and simply bubbles up through a stagnant liquid column.
Finally, the well is practically dead. However, if corrective action is taken to rescue the
situation the well can still resurrect.

Also, it is often useful to determine a given pipe flow whether it is laminar or turbulent.
Laminar flow takes place for flow situations with low fluid velocity, high viscosity; all the
fluid velocity vectors line up in the direction of flow and Stokes law can be applied. On
the other hand, turbulent flow takes place in flow situations with high fluid velocity and
low viscosity. It is characterised by turbulence, mixing in the flow and has high point
velocity vectors in all directions but the overall flow is in one direction. Based on
Reynolds experiment and subsequent measurement, pipe flow is laminar for Reynolds
Number (Re) 2100 and turbulent for Re 4000. But for 2100 Re 4000 is called the
transition region, the flow may be either laminar or turbulent depending upon factors
like the entrance condition into the pipe and the roughness of the pipe surface. The
Reynolds Number for flow in pipes is given as;

(1)

Where;
= Renolds number

10
 = Density of gas, kg/m3
= Velocity of gas, kg/m3
= Tubing internal diameter, m
= Gas viscosity, Pa.s

2.5 Droplet sizes

Hinze (1955); and Liu and Reitz (1997) observed in experiment that drops are firstly
distorted from initial spherical shape into oblate spheroid because of the different
pressure distribution on the drop surface in parallel air flow; then vibration-type
breakup, bag-type breakup, that is droplet shows the body shape of a bag, vibration-type
breakup, and those drops that have a small deformation would not breakup as shown in
figure B8. Further experiments conducted by Hanson et al (1963) found that the value of
critical Weber number which is related to maximum drop size varies from 2.2 to 60 of
low viscosity liquid. Hinze (1955) also ascertained that the balance of two pressures
the velocity pressure and the surface tension pressure determines the maximum size a
droplet may attain. The surface tension of the liquid phase acts to draw into a spheroid
shape. Both Turner and Colemans equations are based on fixed droplet shape, a
constant size and assumes a solid sphere. The Weber number; which is a dimensionless
value useful for analyzing fluid flows between two different fluids, was established
experimentally from droplets falling in air but not for conditions existing in gas wells as;

(2)

Where;
Weber number
= Droplet diameter, m
= Acceleration due to gravity, m/s
= Interfacial tension, N/m
Turners selected 30 as the largest value and obtain the maximum droplet diameter as;

(3)

11
Also Gudmundsson (2000) cited Davies (1972) suggested that the maximum diameter of
droplet in isotropic turbulence can be obtained as;

( ) ( ) (4)

And PM = ( ) (5)

Then ( ) ( ) (6)

Where;
= Maximum droplet diameter, m
= Frictional factor

= Energy dissipation, W/Kg

2.6 Critical velocity and rate

A critical velocity exists when gas can no longer transport liquid upwards through the
well tubing. The critical gas rate is defined as the minimum gas flow rate that will ensure
the continuous removal of liquids from the wellbore. The most widely used equation to
estimate critical rate is Turner's equation derived from the spherical liquid droplet
model, assuming a constant turbulent flow regime. A slight variation of this equation
was proposed by Coleman (1991). And more recently, an enhancement of the model was
proposed by Nosseir (2000) who considered the prevailing flow regimes, and by Li
(2001) who, to obtain a match to the behaviour of the wells he studied, considered the
shape of entrained droplets to more like convex bean than spherical. All the methods are
essentially Turner's equation with different constant terms corresponding to different
flow conditions.

The relevant equations are;

Turners et al (1969)

( )
[ ] (7)

12
Colemans et al (1991)

( )
[ ] (8)

Nosseirs et al (2000)

( )
[ ] (9)

Lis et al (2002)

( )
[ ] (10)

And the critical rate is given as;

[ ] (11)

Turner et al uses 20% adjustment, and his critical velocity and rate were multiply by a
safety factor of 1.2. Where is in ft/sec, in dyne/cm, and in Ibm/ft3, in
Mscf/D, P in psia, T in R, in ft, and in ft2.

They used 5.34 and 4.02 as constants for water and condensate respectively and added
that if any water is produced, water properties should be used for critical velocity
calculations. Turner model is at bottom hole and the evaluation of the critical velocity is
made at bottom conditions whereas Turner et al concluded that the well head conditions
are the control factors for liquid loading and evaluation of critical velocity should be
made at the wellhead.

In addition, Sutton et al (2009), proposed a guideline for the proper application of

critical velocity calculations. They stated that; although field personnel generally uses
conditions at the top of the well as an evaluating point for calculating critical flow rate

13
for a well, a change in geometry down hole or other conditions may lead to erroneous
conclusions. Using conditions at the bottom with fundamental equations requires
accurate correlations for PVT properties such as surface tension and density for gas and
liquid phases. They concluded that for almost every case, the critical velocity can be
calculated using water properties since water has a higher density than liquid
hydrocarbons; because gas will be able to lift hydrocarbon if it is able to lift water. The
evaluation point for determining critical velocity can be either wellhead or bottom. They
stated that wellhead conditions should be used in high pressure wells (Pwhf greater than
1000 psia) and bottom conditions should be used in low pressure wells (Pwhf less than
1000 psia) when calculating critical velocity. For wells producing free water, using
bottom conditions would be more accurate. Also according to their study the original
safety factor Turner et al provided is needed to ensure the well is unloaded along the
entire flow path.

2.7 Energy to lift droplets

The minimum kinetic energy criterion requires that gas kinetic energy exceed a
minimum value to transport liquid droplets up in the gas well. For an ideal gas, the
volume of these particles is assumed to be so small that it is negligible compared with
the total volume occupied by the gas. It is assumed also that these particles or molecules
have neither attractive nor repulsive forces between them. The average energy of the
particles or molecules can be shown to be a function of temperature only. Thus, the
kinetic energy, Ek is independent of molecule type or size. It is related to mass and
velocity by;
EK = (12)
Where;

EK = Kinetic energy of particle, J

= Mass of particle, kg

= Velocity of particle, m/s

Guo's Method: Guo's method refers to the method presented by Guo, Ghalambor, and
Xu (2005) starting from Turner et al's entrained drop model. They determined the

14
minimum kinetic energy of gas that is required to lift liquids. A four phase (gas, oil,
water and solid particles) mist flow model was developed. Applying the minimum
kinetic energy criteria to the four phase model resulted in a closed form analytical
equation for predicting the minimum gas flow rate. Their analysis indicates that the
controlling conditions are bottom-hole conditions where gas has higher pressure and
lower kinetic energy.

They expressed kinetic energy per unit volume of gas as;

(13)

Where

Ek = gas specific kinetic energy, J

= the velocity of gas, m/s

= acceleration due to gravity, m/s2

And the minimum kinetic energy required keeping the liquid from falling as;

( )
(14)

Where = drag coefficient having a value of 0.44 as recommended by Turner et al

(1969).

The effect of gas density is neglected (a conservative assumption), equation 14 becomes;

(15)

Equation 15 is a vertical separator equation which can be compared with a vertical

wellbore.

For gas wells producing water, typical values for interfacial tension and water density
are 60 dynes/cm and 65 lbm/ft3 respectively. This yields minimum kinetic energy value
of 2.5 Ibf-ft/ft3.

15
In gas wells producing condensate, typical values for condensate/gas interfacial tension
and condensate density are 20 dynes/cm and 45 lbm/ft3 respectively. This yields
minimum kinetic energy value of 1.2 Ibf-ft/ft3.

2.8 Droplets in separators

Separators are designed and manufactured in horizontal, vertical, and a variety of other
configurations. Each configuration has specific advantages and limitations. Selection is
based on obtaining the desired results at the lowest life-cycle and cost. In this work,
horizontal separator is used based on its advantages over the vertical. According to
Maurice (2008), horizontal separators are smaller, more efficient at handling large
volumes of gas, and less expensive than vertical separators for a given gas capacity. In
the gravity settling section of a horizontal vessel, the liquid droplets fall perpendicularly
to the gas flow and thus are more easily settled out of the gas continuous phase. Since
the interface area is larger in a horizontal separator than a vertical separator, it is easier
for the gas bubbles, which come out of solution as the liquid approaches equilibrium, to
reach the vapour phase.

When sizing a horizontal separator, it is necessary to choose a seam-to-seam vessel

length and a diameter (Maurice 2008). This choice must satisfy the conditions for gas
capacity that allow the liquid droplets to fall from the gas to the liquid volume as the gas
traverses the effective length of the vessel. It must also provide sufficient retention time
to allow the liquid to reach equilibrium. Figure B9 shows a vessel 50% full of liquid,
which is the model used to develop sizing equations for a horizontal separator.

Based on Souder-Brown equation (Sounders and Brown 1934), sizing a gas-liquid

separator requires using the maximum allowable gas velocity, at which the minimum
droplet can settle out of a moving gas stream as in the case of vertical separators. If the
actual gas velocity under a given operating conditions exceeds the critical interface
velocity, it is then assumed that the liquid droplet will be entrained into the gas stream
from the gas-liquid interface, and eventually leads to a higher carryover at the gas outlet.
To ensure that the liquid and gas reach equilibrium at separator pressure, a certain
liquid storage is required. This is defined as retention time and is thus the volume of
the liquid storage in the vessel divided by the liquid flow rate. For most practical
16
applications, retention times between 30 seconds and 3 minutes have been found to be
sufficient (Maurice 2008). Where foaming crude is present, retention time up to four
times this amount may be needed. In the absence of liquid or laboratory data, the
guidelines presented in table A2 can be used.

Also, characteristics of the flow stream greatly affect the design and operation of a
separator. Before separator design, the following must be determined; gas and liquids
minimum and maximum flow rates, operating and design pressure and temperature,
surging or slugging tendencies of the feed stream, physical properties of the fluid such as
density and compressibility factor, design degree of separation, presence of impurities,
foaming tendencies of the crude oil and the corrosion tendencies of the liquid or gas.

Factor influencing moving liquid drops in the separator are; turbulence, gas
compressibility and shape of drops. Forces exerted on liquid drops are gravity FG, drag
FD and buoyancy FB. In the gravity settling section of a separator, liquid droplets are
removed using the force of gravity. Liquid droplets, contained in the gas, settle at a
terminal or settling velocity. At this velocity, the force of gravity on the droplet or
negative buoyant force equals the drag force exerted on the droplet due to its
movement through the continuous gas phase.

A liquid drop in a gas stream will be carried upward if the gas velocity is higher than the
terminal settling velocity (TSV). According Gudmundsson (200), the TSV of a liquid
droplet in a gas stream is given by the equation;

= (16)

In practical situation in gas - liquid separators, TSV can be written as;

= (17)

Where is the separation constant. For a vertical separator, API recommended a value
between 0.05 to 0.11 for the constant. Clearly the value of constant takes into

17
consideration the diameter of the droplet and the relevant drag coefficient, in addition to
the given values 4/3 and acceleration due to gravity g.

18
3. Determination of fluid properties using HYSYS

HYSYS, an engineering simulation software developed by Aspen Technologies

Incorporated was used in this project work to determine the properties of the fluid (gas
and water) using the fluid composition in table A1 obtained from Natural Gas
Engineering textbook by Guo, B. and Ghalambor A. (2005). I started HYSYS by first click
on the start menu and select it among the various programs in the computer.

In the second step, I added components to the new simulation environment I created.
HYSYS already had a database of about 1500 components making it easy to select the
specific needed components with reference to table A1. After specifying the components
list, the composition of the fluid is directly put into the program and normalized to give a
total mole fraction of one.

In the third step, I selected Peng-Robinson equation of state as the fluid package. The
fluid package contains information about the physical and flash properties of
components. It determines the relation between each component and how they react
together. The Peng-Robinson fluid package is the preferred fluid package for
hydrocarbon mixtures. It is recommended for oil, gas and petrochemicals because it
calculates with a high degree of accuracy the properties of single-phase, two-phase and
three-phase systems.

In the last step, I chose Brill and Beggs (1991) as the multiphase flow model and entered
the simulation.

The gas at the bottom of the well was mixed with water using a mixer and the properties
of the mixed fluids were obtained. The gas was assumed to have a temperature of 80C
(353 K), a pressure of 250 bara (25000 kPa) and a molar flow of 60,000 kg/h (16.7
kg/s). The water was set at the same temperature and pressure of the gas with a molar
flow of 1300 kg/hr (0.36 kg/s). The gas and water rates were suggested by my
supervisor.

The mixed fluid was used as a feed to the down-hole separator where water was
separated as reservoir water and the saturated gas was considered as the gas in the
reservoir which flows through a well of 2500 m with five different pipe segments of 500
m each representing the well to the surface through the tubing. The pipes had an outer

19
diameter of 4.50" (0.114 m) and an inner diameter of 4.02" (0.102 m). The saturated gas
at the bottom of the well was taken to be the bottom hole flowing fluid and its properties
are shown in table A3.

The flow was distributed and assumed to be a mist flow throughout the different
segments of the pipe and the properties of the gas at the surface were obtained as shown
in table A4. These values above were considered as the fluid properties at the surface
(well head) and was used as a feed to the two-phase standard and horizontal separator
(half filled) which passes through a choke with 50% opening, its properties in the
separator is shown in table A5. The simulation panel is shown as figure B10. For
convenient and ease calculations, some of the fluid properties are summarised in table
A6 in both field and SI units.

20
4. Estimation of gas velocity and flow

Typically, gas velocity refers to the speed of the gas flowing through the pipe measured
in units of distance per unit time. Here it was estimated as the ratio of the actual volume
flow rate from HYSYS to the cross sectional area of the pipe as given below;

(18a)

And = (18b)

where
= the velocity of gas, m/s
= the actual volumetric flow rate, m3/s
= the cross-sectional area of pipe, m2
To obtain , I substitute = 0.102 m in equation 18b, the value of was obtained as
0.008 m2.
Substituting = 0.086 m3/s, 0.160 m3/s, 0.165 m3/s as the flow rate at the bottom,
surface and the separator respectively from table A6, the gas velocity was obtained as 11
m/s, 20 m/s, and 21 m/s respectively.

As earlier mentioned in the literature, it is often useful to determine a given pipe flow
whether it is laminar or turbulent. Based on Reynolds experiment and subsequent
measurement, pipe flow is laminar for Renolds Number (Re) 2100 and turbulent for
Re 4000. But for 2100 Re 4000 is called the transition region, the flow may be
either laminar or turbulent depending upon factors like the entrance condition into the
pipe and the roughness of the pipe surface.

Using equation 1 and substituting; = 0.102 m, = 11 m/s, = 194 kg/m3, and =

2.4e-05 Pa.s at bottom conditions, = 9.0e+06. Also substituting = 0.102 m, = 20
m/s, = 105 kg/m3, and = 1.6e-05 Pa.s at surface conditions, = 1.30e+07 (highly
turbulent flow).
The Reynolds Number was calculated for the purpose of determining the friction factor
using the pipe roughness value. The friction factor was correlated as a function of the
Reynolds Number and the relative pipe roughness (absolute roughness divided by
inside diameter) as presented in the Moody Diagram in figure B11. There are two
common friction factor definitions in standard usage; Fanning and Darcy Weisbach, the

21
latter is four times the former. Wall roughness is a function of pipe material, method of
manufacture and the environment to which it has been exposed. Its effect is due to
inside diameter of the pipe thus relative roughness is the ratio of the absolute roughness
to the pipe internal diameter as shown in the equation below;

(19)

Where

= the relative roughness of pipe

= the absolute roughness of pipe

= the pipe inside diameter, m

To calculate for the value of , I used a typical value of absolute roughness from table A7.

Substituting = 0.000015 m, = 0.102m, = 0.0015

Correlating with , the frictional factor f 0.013

Also, in the laminar zone where flow rate is low, the fluid flow is in one direction and the
friction factor shows a sharp dependency on flow rate as defined by Hagen Poiseuille
equation below;

f= (20)

In the turbulent zone, where the flow rate is high, the fluid flows laterally within the pipe
in complete turbulence as well as in the primary direction, and the friction factor shows
no dependency on flow rate. The friction factor is given by the rough pipe law of
Nikuradse (1932) as;

(21a)

It can also be calculated using Haalands (1983) equation given as;

( )
[( )] (21b)

22
5. Estimation of droplet diameter

In reality, the droplet diameter is dependent upon the gas velocity. The studies of Turner
et al (1969) state that the existence of liquid drops in the gas stream present a different
problem, which is basically determining the minimum gas flow rate that will lift the
drops out of the well to the surface. For liquid droplets entrained in a gas stream shows
that this dependence can be expressed in terms of the dimensionless Weber Number.
Turner utilised the Weber Number to determine the maximum droplet diameter. For
conditions in a gas well, Turner reported this critical Weber Number to range 15 30 as
determine from the equation below;

(22)

Selected 30 as the largest value and obtain the maximum droplet diameter as;

(23)

Substituting these values from table 6; m/s, = 0.063N/m, = 194kg/m3, =

11m/s at bottom hole conditions;

Therefore = 0.000789m = 789m

Also Gudmundsson (2000) cited Davies (1972) suggested that the maximum diameter of
droplet in isotropic turbulence can be obtained as;

( ) ( ) (24)

Where PM = ( ) (25)

Then ( ) ( ) (26)

Substituting the above values;

Therefore = 0.003497m. This shows that Gudmundsson proposal is approximately

four times that of Turner. Table 8 compares the maximum droplet sizes at bottom
conditions, surface and at the separator of the two authors.

23
6. Determination of critical velocity and rate for gas

The most popular model for the prediction of critical velocity for liquid loading in gas
wells is the entrained-droplet model presented by Turner et al (1969). Turner model
is given in field units in the equations below;

( )
[ ] (27)

They found that the model still underestimated the critical rates of their wells and
adjusted 20% upwards. With the 20% adjustment, the critical velocity and rate were
multiplied by a safety factor of 1.2 and the final equations are;

( )
[ ] And ( ) as in equations 7 and 9

respectively.

Turner model is at bottom hole and the evaluation of the critical velocity is made at
bottom conditions whereas Turner et al concluded that the well head conditions are
the control factors for liquid loading and evaluation of critical velocity should be made
at the wellhead. Table A9 shows different correlations for critical velocity and rates
calculations at wellhead conditions as proposed by different authors, and their
assumed drag coefficients based on values from table A6.

24
7. Droplets in the separators

As gas flows through the plates in the separator, droplets impinged on the plate
surface. The droplets coalesce; fall, and are routed to the liquid collection section of
the vessel. Vane-type eliminators are sized by their manufacturers to ensure both
laminar flow and a certain minimum pressure drop. Their operation is usually dictated
by a design velocity known as the terminal settling velocity (TSV). TSV of a liquid
droplet in a gas stream is given by;

and in practical situation in gas - liquid separation, TSV can be written as;

= as in equations 16 and 17 respectively.

Where is the separation constant; known as SoundersBrown coefficient ranging

between 0.05 to 0.11 as recommended by API.

Substituting = 1000 kg/m3, = 101 kg/m3, taken = 0.10

= 0.029 m/s

Higher gas velocities can be handled if the vanes are installed in a horizontal gas flow
instead of vertical up-flow. In the horizontal configuration the liquid can easily drain
downward due to gravity and thus out of the path of the incoming gas, which
minimizes re-entrainment of the liquid (Maurice 2008).

The phase equilibrium diagram is a useful tool to visualize phase behaviour. Phase
equilibrium is a theoretical condition where the liquids and vapours have reached
certain pressure and temperature conditions at which they can separate. Figure B12
illustrates several operating points on a generic phase equilibrium diagram.

25
8. Discussion

As mentioned above; for liquid droplet models, Turner suggested using the model at
the bottom-hole; Turner et al suggested using it at the wellhead. Coleman et al (1991)
supported that point of view but suggested applying the model at the largest diameter
if there is more than one flowing area such as when the tubing bottom is set
significantly above perforation.

Therefore liquid unloading condition is where producing gas velocity is higher than
or equals the critical velocity as;

And loading condition when;

Whether at the bottom hole or well head. From my calculations; at bottomhole and
wellhead are 11m/s and 20m/s respectively and the at the wellhead is 1.8 m/s
according to Turner et al model. This means that the gas well will not load at these
velocities.

In addition, a close looking at equation 18 that is the equation to calculate gas velocity;
for a constant production rate, the producing gas velocity depends on the flowing
conduit area. That is the larger the flowing conduit area, the smaller the gas velocity.
The areal effect is useful in gas-well design. For a desired production gas rate, one may
increase production gas velocity to satisfy unloading condition by choosing smaller
tubing. For a constant flowing area such as tubing set at the perforation from wellhead
to bottom, gas velocity decrease with increase in depth (temperature and pressure).
This is demonstrated in figure B13, the producing gas velocity curve needs more
numeric calculation and gradient may change the relative trend of the curve as in
figure B14. The figure shows that the frictional acceleration is negligible as the fluid
flows along the conduit.

By comparing the maximum droplet diameters at the bottom, surface and in the

26
separator to be separated, it was found that the droplet sizes at the bottom of the well
were larger than that at the surface and the separator. The droplet sizes were
0.000789 m, 0.000476 m, and 0.000509 m at the bottom, surface and at the separator
respectively according to Turner et al model. This means that the sizes of droplets
break in gas stream as they are carried along to the surface and coalesce in the
separator to form larger droplets before separation based on the recommended
residence time. Also, the droplet sizes using Gudmundsson model shows four times
higher than the Turners model as shown in table A8.

Using the phase diagram in figure B12, the critical point was at 210 K and 6500 kPa of
temperature and pressure respectively at which the gas and the liquid are at
equilibrium. The bubble point calculations can be used to calculate the reservoir
conditions, the dew point marked the temperature and pressure at which the first tiny
drops of liquid appear in the gas immediately after the critical point.

The 50% opening valve showed pressure drop of about 400 kPa; control valves have
variable opening or orifice, and for a given pressure drop across the valve is the larger
the orifice the greater the flow through the valve. In the separator, a typical droplet
size of about 500 had a settling velocity of 0.011 m/s as depicted in figure B16. Also
comparing pressure and velocity versus depth as shown in figure B15, it showed that
pressure depleted faster than the velocity, thus pressure reduction affects the
distribution of droplets.

27
9. Conclusion

1. Liquid loading occurs in gas wells when the produced gas velocity is less than
the droplet critical velocity at well-head conditions.
2. Gas velocity depends on density, temperature, interface tension, pressure and
conduit diameter thus affecting the distribution and size of droplets.
3. Critical velocity is independent of pressure and flowing area of the conduit.
4. Drop sizes of about 480 m in the gas stream can be lifted to the surface with a
minimum gas velocity of 1.8 m/s and flow rate of 2.2 Sm3/s
5. Droplets of the order of 400 m have a terminal settling velocity of about
0.01m/s as in figure B16.

28
 Nomenclature

Symbols Definitions and Units

A Area of tubing, ID, ft, m2
CD Drag coefficient
D Tubing internal diameter, ft, m
dD Droplet diameter, m, m
EK Kinetic energy of particle, J
F Frictional factor
FB Force of buoyancy, N
FG Force of gravity, N
FD Drag force, N
g Acceleration due to gravity, m/s2
gc Gravitational constant, 32.17Ib-ft/Ibf-s
m Mass of particle, kg
Nwe Weber Number
P Well-head pressure, bara, psia, kPa
PR Reservoir pressure, bara, psia, kPa
Pwf Well flowing pressure, bara, psia, kPa
q Flow rate, Mscf/D, Sm3/s
qc Critical rate, MMscf/D, Sm3/s
Re Reynolds Number
T Well-head temperature, C, K
TR Turner Ratio
TSV Terminal settling velocity, ft/s, m/s
u Velocity of particle, m/s
Gas velocity, ft/s, m/s
Critical velocity, ft/s, m/s
Velocity of droplet, ft/s, m/s
V Volume, ft3, m3
Z Compressibility factor

29
Interfacial tension, dyne/cm, N/m
Density of gas, Ib/ft3, kg/m3
Density of liquid, Ib/ft3, kg/m3
Gas viscosity, Pa.s

30
 References

Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P. (1991): A study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, Journal
of Petroleum Technology p 607-617.

Belfroid, S.P., Schiferli, W., Alberts, G.J., Veeken, C.A. and Biezen, E. (2008):
Prediction Onset and Dynamic Behavior of Liquid Loading Gas Wells, paper SPE
115567 presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference, September 2124

Coleman, S.B., Clay, H.B., McCurdy, D.G. and Norris, H.L., (1991): A New Look at
Predicting Gas Well Load-up Journal of Petroleum Technology, p 329-333.

Davies, J. S. (1972): Turbulence Phenomena, Academic Press, New York, 412pp

Dake, L.P., (1978) Fundamentals Of Reservoir Engineering Elsevier Scientific

Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Duggan, J.O.(1961): Estimating Flow Rates Required to Keep Gas Wells Unloaded,
Journal of Petroleum Technology, SPE 1173-1176.

Gudmundsson, J. S. and Sletfjerding, E. (2001): Friction Factor In High Pressure

Natural Gas Pipelines From Roughness Measurements International Gas Research
Conference, November 5-8, Amsterdam.

Guo, B., Ghalambor, A., and Xu, C. (2005): A Systematic Approach to Predicting
Liquid Loading in Gas Wells, SPE 94081, presented at the SPE Production
and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City. April, p 1719.

Haaland, S. E., (1983): Simple and explicit formulas for friction factor in turbulent pipe
flow. ASME 105, p 89 - 90

Hassan, A.R.,(2007): A Basic Approach to Wellbore Two-Phase Flow Modelling

SPE 109868.

Hinze, J.O., (1955): Fundamentals of the Hydrodynamic Mechanism of

Splitting in Dispersion Processes, AIChE Journal.

Lea J.F., and Nickens, H.V.,(2004); Solving Gas-Well Liquid-Loading Problems Journal
of Petroleum Technology. April, p 30 - 36

Li, M., Li, S.L., and Sun, L.T., (2002): New View on Continuous Removal of Liquids from
Gas Wells; SPE Journal of Production and Facilities.

Libson, T. N., and Henry, J. T., (1980): Identification of and Remedial Action for Liquid
Loading in Gas Wells-Intermediate Shelf Gas Play,
Journal of Petroleum Technology.

Liu, Z. and Reitz, R. D. (1997): An Analysis of the Distortion and Breakup Mechanisms
of High Speed Liquid Drops International Journal of Multiphase Flow.

31
Maurice, S., (2008): Gas-liquid and liquid-liquid separators. Science Direct, Elsevier Inc.,
p 131-174.

Nikurade, J. (1932): Gesetzmassigkeiten der turbulenten stromung in glatten rohren,

VDI, Forschungsheft

Nosseir, M.A., Darwish, T.A., Sayyouh, M.H. and El, S. M., (2000): A New Approach for
Accurate Prediction of Loading in Gas Wells under Different Flowing Conditions SPE
Journal of Production and Facilities.

Orkiszewski, J. (1967): Predicting Two Phase Pressure Drops in Vertical Pipe,

Journal of Petroleum Technology.

Streeter, V. L., and Wylie, E. B. (1995): Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill Inc., USA.

Sutton, R. P., Cox, S. A., Williams, E. G., Stoltz, R. P., and Gilbert, J. V., (2003)
Gas Well Performance at Subcritical Rates, SPE 80887 presented at the SPE
Production and Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City.

Turner, R.G., Hubbard, M.G. and Dukler A.E.(1969): Analysis and Prediction of
Minimum Flow Rate for the Continuous Removal of Liquids from Gas Wells Journal of
Petroleum Technology.

Veeken, K., Bakker, E., and Verbeek, P. (2003): Evaluating Liquid Loading Field Data
and Remedial Measures, Denver.

Wierzba, A., (1990): Deformation and Breakup of Liquid Drops in a Gas Stream at
Nearly Critical Weber Numbers, Experiments in Fluids.

32
 Appendix

Appendix A: Showing tables

Table A1: Composition of gas (Guo, B. and Ghalambor, A., 2005)

Composition Mole fraction

Methane 0.8407
Ethane 0.0586
Propane 0.0220
i-Butane 0.0035
n-Butane 0.0058
i-Pentane 0.0027
n-Pentane 0.0025
Hexane 0.0028
Heptanes and heavier 0.0076
Carbon dioxide 0.0130
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.0063
Nitrogen 0.0345
H2O 0.0000
Total 1.0000

Table A2: Retention time for a two-phase separator (Maurice 2008)

API Gravity Retention Time Retention Time

(minutes) (seconds)
35 and above 0.5 1 30 60
30 2 120
25 3 180
20 and below 4 240

33
Table A3: Fluid properties at bottom hole conditions using HYSYS

Table A4: Fluid properties at Wellhead (surface) conditions using HYSYS

34
Table A5: Fluid properties after choke at the Separator for separation

Table A6: Summary of some fluid properties at bottom, surface and separator

Parameters Bottom conditions Surface conditions At separator

63dyne/cm = 69dyne/cm = 70dyne/cm =0.07N/m
0.063N/m 0.069N/m
975kg/m3 = 61Ib/ft3 999kg/m3 = 62Ib/ft3 1000kg/m3 = 62Ib/ft3
194kg/m3 = 12Ib/ft3 105kg/m3 = 6.5Ib/ft3 101kg/m3 = 6Ib/ft3
25000kPa = 10831kPa = 1571psia 10431kPa = 1513psia
36259psia
78C = 351K = 632R 41C = 314K = 565R 39C = 312K = 562R
0.88 0.79 0.79
2.4E-02cp = 2.4-05Pas 1.6E-02cp = 1.6E- 1.6E-02cp = 1.6E-
05Pas 05Pas
4.02" = 0.34ft= 0.102m 4.02" = 0.34ft = 4.02" = 0.34ft=0.102m
0.102m
310m3/h = 0.086m3/s 573m3/h = 0.160m3/s 593m3/h = 0.165m3/s

35
Table A7: Pipe roughness ( ) values (Streeter and Wylie 1983)

Materials (mm) (m)

Concrete 0.3 3.0 0.0003 0.003
Cast iron 0.26 0.00026
Galvanised iron 0.15 0.00015
Asphalted cast iron 0.12 0.00012
Commercial or welded steel 0.045 0.000045
PVC, other Drawn Tubing 0.0015 0.0000015
Glass smooth

Table A8: Maximum droplet sizes as proposed by Turner et al and Gudmundsson

Turner et al, (m) Gudmundsson, (m)

Bottom hole conditions 0.000789 0.003497
Surface (Well head) 0.000476 0.002459
conditions
At Separator 0.000509 0.002630

Table A9: Different correlations for critical velocity and gas rate calculations at Well
Head Conditions (WHC)

Correla Turners et al Colemans Nosseirs Lis

-tion
Critical
Veloci- ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
[ ] [ ] [ ] [ ]
ty
Assum- 0.44 0.44 0.2 1.0
ed CD
Calc. 5.92ft/s = 4.92ft/s = 1.5m/s 5.98ft/s = 2.23ft/s = 0.7m/s
at WHC 1.8m/s 1.82m/s
6886Mscf = 5723Mscf = 6956Mscf = 2594Mscf =

36
2.26m3/s 1.88m3/s 2.28m3/s 0.85m3/s

37
 Appendix B: Showing figures

Figure B1: Typical production response in liquid loading gas well

Source: Royal Dutch Shell Report EP 2003-5307, p.3

Figure B2: Showing the illustration of Critical Concept

Source: Lea J. et al (2008), Gas Well Deliquification

38
Figure B3 : Shape of entrained drop movement in high-velocity gas

Figure B4: Typical Gas Well Decline Curve along with Indication of Loading

Figure B5: Typical Pressure Survey Graph

39
Figure B6: Basic Profile of Multiphase Flow in Well

Figure B7: Changing behaviour of a liquid loaded well

40
 Figure B8. Different types of droplet deformation and breakup (Wierzba, 1990).
(a) Deformation without breakup
(b) Vibration-type breakup
(c) Bag-type breakup
(d) Vibration-type breakup in the first phase of the process without breakup in the
final phase
(e) Vibration-type breakup in the first phase of the process and transformed into bag-
type breakup in the final phase.

Figure B9: Horizontal Separator (Maurice 2008)

41
Figure B10: HYSYS Simulation panel

Figure B11: Moody Diagram

Figure B12: Phase diagram

42
 Gas Velocity, m/s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0

500

1000
Series1
Depth, m

1500

2000

2500

3000

Figure B13: Plot of gas velocity with depth

Figure B14: Plot of pressure gradient and depth

43
 Depth,m Vs Pressure, Mpa and Velocity, m/s
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28
0

500

1000
Pressure
Depth, m

1500 Velocity

2000

2500

3000

Figure B15: Plot of depth, m vs pressure Mpa and velocity, m/s

TSV, m/s vs droplets diameter, microns

0,014
Terminal settling velocity, m/s

0,012
0,01
0,008
0,006
Series1
0,004
0,002
0
1 10 100 1000
Droplets diameter, microns

Figure B16: Plot of terminal settling velocity (TSV), m/s vs droplet diameter, microns.

44
Appendix C: Development of terminal settling velocity (TSV) of droplet

The force of gravity FG, buoyancy FB and drag FD on the droplet may be determined from
the following equations:

FG = V[N] (C1)

= gVd (C2)

The force of buoyancy of the drop is

FB = gVd (C3)

The drag force on the drop is

FD = 2 (C4)

Where

FD = drag force, lbf, N

CD = drag coefficient

Ad = cross-sectional area of the droplet, ft2, m2

= density of the continuous phase, lb/ft3, kg/m3

= terminal (settling velocity) of liquid droplet, ft/s, m/s

g = gravitational constant, 32.2 lbmft/lbf s2 , m/s2).

When the liquid drop acquires a steady speed defined as the settling speed, the drag
force is just the same as gravity. This state could be described as;

FD = FG FB (C5)

That is;

2 = gVd(L - G ) (C6)

Where Vd is the volume of the drop given as;

Vd = (C7)

45
And A = (C8)

Therefore the terminal settling velocity (TSV) of a liquid droplet in a gas stream is given
by;

= (C9)

Where = (C10)

In practical situation in gas - liquid separation, TSV can be written as;

= (C11)

Where is the separation constant; ranging between 0.05 to 0.11 as recommended by

API.

46